PLEASE REFER TO ANZFA’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS AND ...
[pic]
26 March 2012
[7-12]
Consultation Paper
Proposed Future Regulation of Nutritive Substances and Novel Foods in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is investigating the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). This Consultation Paper has been prepared by FSANZ to inform stakeholders of this work and to call for stakeholder views on a potential new approach to regulating nutritive substances and novel foods. Responses from stakeholders will assist FSANZ in further investigating the future regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code.
For information about making a submission, visit the FSANZ website at information for submitters.
Under the Information Publication Scheme all submissions will be published on our website. We will not publish any material provided in-confidence. Submissions will be published as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Where large numbers of documents are involved, FSANZ will make these available on CD, rather than on the website.
Under section 114 of the FSANZ Act, some information provided to FSANZ cannot be disclosed. More information about the disclosure of confidential commercial information is available on the FSANZ website at information for submitters.
Submissions should be made in writing; be marked clearly with the word ‘Submission’ and quote ’Consultation Paper – Nutritive Substances and Novel Foods’. While FSANZ accepts submissions in hard copy to our offices, it is more convenient and quicker to receive submissions electronically through the FSANZ website via the link on documents for public comment. You can also email your submission directly to submissions@.au.
There is no need to send a hard copy of your submission if you have submitted it by email or via the FSANZ website. FSANZ endeavours to formally acknowledge receipt of submissions within 3 business days.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 6pm (Canberra time) 21 May 2012
Submissions received after this date will not be considered unless an extension had been given before the closing date. Extensions will only be granted due to extraordinary circumstances during the submission period. Any agreed extension will be notified on the FSANZ website and will apply to all submitters.
Questions about making submissions or the application process can be sent to standards.management@.au.
Hard copy submissions may be sent to one of the following addresses:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food Standards Australia New Zealand
PO Box 7186 PO Box 10559
Canberra BC ACT 2610 The Terrace WELLINGTON 6143
AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND
Tel +61 2 6271 2222 Tel +64 4 978 5630
Table of Contents
1. Executive summary 2
2. Introduction 4
2.1 Background 4
2.1.1 Current situation 4
2.1.2 History – issues with nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code 5
2.2 The Regulatory Problem 7
2.3 Scope of this paper 7
3. Regulatory Options 8
3.1 Possible options 8
3.1.1 Status Quo 8
3.1.2 Use of a non-regulatory approach 8
3.1.3 Consider new definitions for nutritive substances and novel foods 8
3.1.4 Consider international approaches to nutritive substances and novel foods. 9
3.1.5 Consider an alternative regulatory approach 10
4. Proposed Alternative Regulatory Approach 10
4.1 Elements of the proposed alternative regulatory approach 11
4.2 Eligible food criteria 17
4.2.1 Notes regarding criteria 2-4 above 19
4.3 Assessment of non-eligible foods 20
4.4 New foods that meet eligibility criteria 20
4.5 Suggested outcomes of the proposed approach 21
5 Comparison of proposed new approach with current Code and ACNF 21
5.1 Comparison with current Code requirements 21
5.2 Comparison with previous ACNF conclusions 22
6. Next steps 23
Attachment A – Examples of foods that meet the eligible food criteria 25
Attachment B – Evaluation of approach against ACNF views 27
Attachment C – Summary of International Regulatory Systems 36
Attachment D – Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) 43
Attachment E – List of Questions for Submitters 48
1. Executive summary
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) contains a number of standards that set out requirements for foods sold in Australia and New Zealand. Various standards in the Code include restrictions or prohibitions on the addition of substances to foods (including food additives, processing aids, nutritive substances) and on the sale of certain foods (including certain botanicals, genetically modified foods, irradiated foods and novel foods). These substances and foods must be explicitly listed in the Code as permitted before they can be added to food or sold as food.
Most of these restrictions and prohibitions are clearly articulated in the Code and stakeholders can determine whether their products require pre-market assessment before they are sold or added to foods. However, the provisions in the Code underpinning the prohibitions on the addition of nutritive substances to foods and the sale of novel foods have come under increasing scrutiny with regard to their effectiveness.
The prohibitions on the addition of nutritive substances to foods and the sale of novel foods are based on the concern that the safety of human consumption of these products is not well established or well understood. In order to establish or determine that these products are safe for human consumption, a regulatory pre-market assessment is considered necessary.
The Code includes definitions of ‘nutritive substance’ and ‘novel food’ and relies on these definitions to determine which substances and foods are subject to the prohibitions. However, there is some ambiguity in these definitions and this poses problems in implementing and enforcing these provisions.
Problems with the definition of nutritive substance in Standard 1.1.1 became apparent after the NSW Supreme Court identified a number of ambiguous terms in the definition that made interpretation very difficult (December 2008). Similar and other issues have been identified in the definition of novel food in Standard 1.5.1 and in the operation of the standard itself.
In response, FSANZ has considered several options to address the regulatory uncertainty and is now seeking feedback on a proposed alternative regulatory approach. In general terms, the proposed alternative regulatory approach will split foods into eligible foods and non-eligible foods. This approach will apply only to new foods and is not intended to be retrospectively applied to existing foods. Eligible foods will be permitted to be sold without pre-market assessment by FSANZ.
Under the proposed approach, a substance or a food would generally fall into one of three broad regulatory categories.
1. The substance or food meets one of the eligible food criteria in the Code.
The following two categories relate to foods that are considered non-eligible and further consideration is required.
2. The substance or food is defined in the Code (e.g. a food additive or processing aid) and requires specific approval before use. Permission may be provided via an Application to amend the Code.
3. The substance or food does not meet either of the above categories. Permission may be provided:
(a) via a proposal prepared by FSANZ, based on a pre-market assessment, OR
(b) via an application. This may arise from the pre-market assessment identifying concerns or if there was insufficient evidence to conclude safety.
The majority of foods currently sold in the Australian and New Zealand markets are expected to be considered eligible foods. Non-eligible foods would be prohibited from being sold as food and would require pre-market assessment before they are permitted in the Code. Non-eligible foods would reflect those substances and foods that are considered to require pre-market assessment before they can be sold. To give effect to this proposed alternative approach, the following elements are proposed:
• The current Application assessment process for approval of foods and substances, including food additives, vitamins and minerals, processing aids, food produced using gene technology and irradiated foods would be retained.
• The definitions of nutritive substance and novel food would be removed from the Code.
• In their place would be objective criteria (referred to as eligible food criteria) that would permit a broad range of foods and substances already in the food supply.
• The sale of foods and substances that do not meet the eligible food criteria would be prohibited by the Code.
• Non-eligible foods would then be considered through a process that includes an appropriate level of assessment to determine whether these foods are likely to pose a risk to human safety. A similar process is currently followed by the FSANZ Advisory Committee on Novel Foods.
• Foods that the assessment concludes to be safe would be listed in the Code, through the standard FSANZ proposal process, which would be subject to public consultation.
New foods that the assessment concludes are unsafe, or where there is a lack of evidence to establish safety, would not be permitted in the Code. An Application to amend the Code would need to be submitted to FSANZ in order to have these foods assessed and permitted in the Code.
In general, the proposed alternative approach would not change the way whole foods and simple derivatives are currently regulated in the Code. The approach focusses on ensuring there is an adequate level of regulatory scrutiny on the addition of food-derived[1] substances to foods. The major benefits of the approach will be greater clarity and regulatory certainty for industry and regulators and the development of a streamlined risk assessment for ‘safe’ foods.
While this paper describes the approach in principle, it does not include all the details. FSANZ is requesting feedback on the approach in general, including its feasibility and the potential impacts on stakeholders if such an approach were to be applied to foods in Australia and New Zealand. This Consultation Paper is not proposing any immediate changes to the Code. In order to change the Code, FSANZ is required to prepare a Proposal. The approach will be further expanded and validated, taking into account submissions received in response to this paper, if FSANZ proceeds with a Proposal.
This paper includes a number of questions aimed at eliciting comments on the approach in general and on specific aspects of the approach. FSANZ encourages submitters to provide answers to these questions and to provide any suggestions on other potential approaches to address the regulatory problems highlighted in this paper.
2. Introduction
The Code contains a number of standards that set out requirements for foods sold in Australia and New Zealand. Various standards in the Code include restrictions or prohibitions on the addition of substances to foods (including food additives, processing aids, nutritive substances) and on the sale of certain foods (including certain botanicals, genetically modified foods, irradiated foods and novel foods). These substances and foods must be explicitly listed in the Code as permitted before they can be added to food or sold as food.
Most of these restrictions and prohibitions are clearly articulated in the Code and stakeholders can determine whether their products require pre-market assessment before they are sold or added to foods. However, the provisions in the Code underpinning the prohibitions on the addition of nutritive substances to foods and the sale of novel foods have come under increasing scrutiny with regard to their effectiveness.
Problems with the definition of nutritive substance in Standard 1.1.1 became apparent after the NSW Supreme Court identified a number of ambiguous terms in the definition that made interpretation very difficult (December 2008). Similar and other issues have been identified in the definition of novel food in Standard 1.5.1 and in the operation of the standard itself. These problems create difficulties in implementing and enforcing the prohibitions on the addition of nutritive substances to foods and the sale of novel foods.
FSANZ has begun work on reviewing the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code.
This paper:
discusses the need to regulate certain new substances and foods
briefly outlines the problems that have been encountered to date with the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code
outlines regulatory options and proposes an alternative regulatory approach that aims to overcome these problems
describes the proposed alternative regulatory approach and seeks the views of stakeholders on the approach and its potential impacts.
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Current situation
The Code includes prohibitions and requirements for pre-market assessment of a number of foods, and substances added to foods, before they can be offered for sale in Australia and New Zealand. Food additives, processing aids, nutritive substances, novel foods, foods produced using gene technology and irradiated foods all require pre-market assessment and must be specifically permitted in the Code before they can be sold. This Consultation Paper is focussed only on the issues associated with the prohibitions for nutritive substances and novel foods.
The prohibitions in the Code on the addition of nutritive substances to foods and the sale of novel foods are based on the concern that the safety of human consumption of these products is not well established or well understood. In order to establish or determine that these products are safe for human consumption, a regulatory pre-market assessment is considered necessary.
The Code includes definitions of ‘nutritive substance’ and ‘novel food’ and relies on these definitions to determine which substances and foods are subject to the prohibitions. However, there is some ambiguity in these definitions and this poses problems in implementing and enforcing these provisions.
Standard 1.1.1 includes a definition of nutritive substance and includes a prohibition on the addition of nutritive substances to food unless expressly permitted in the Code. A number of Standards in the Code include permissions for the addition of nutritive substances to various types of foods, including Standard 1.3.2 – Vitamins and Minerals, Standards in Part 2.9 of the Code and some commodity-based Standards in Part 2.6 of the Code.
Novel foods are defined in Standard 1.5.1 and are prohibited from sale at retail unless they are permitted in that Standard. Approved novel foods are listed in the standard following the FSANZ assessment of an Application requesting the approval.
2.1.2 History – issues with nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code
2.1.2.1 Nutritive substance
Problems with the definition of nutritive substance were highlighted after the NSW Supreme Court identified a number of ambiguous terms in the definition that made interpretation very difficult (December 2008). The definition includes terms that are themselves not clearly defined. In particular, terms like normally consumed, nutritive purpose and ingredient are not defined in the Code. The lack of clear meaning of these terms creates uncertainty and ambiguity in the overarching definitions of nutritive substance. This uncertainty and ambiguity makes it difficult to be certain which substances and foods should be considered nutritive substances and therefore, whether particular substances require specific permission in the Code before they can be added to, or sold as, foods.
2.1.2.2 Novel food
Similar issues have been identified in the definition of novel food in Standard 1.5.1. The definition of novel food includes two arms. The first arm is a definition of ‘non-traditional food’. The second arm is a definition of ‘novel food’, which is a subset of ‘non-traditional food’. This means that a food must be considered non-traditional before it can be considered novel.
The definition of ‘non-traditional food’ includes the term history of human consumption, which is not defined elsewhere in the Code. This creates uncertainty, so that the definition of non-traditional food is subject to a similar level of uncertainty and ambiguity as the definition of nutritive substance. Therefore, it is difficult to be certain which foods should be considered non-traditional and subsequently whether they should be subject to the second arm of the definition of novel food.
In addition, a novel food is defined as a non-traditional food that requires an assessment of the public health and safety considerations having regard to (a number of matters which are set out). This phrase is also considered to be ambiguous and not clearly defined elsewhere in the Code. However, this ambiguity raises an additional problem to those identified above for the definitions of nutritive substance and non-traditional food.
Applying the phrase means that it is a matter of judgment or estimation as to whether an assessment is required. This leads to potential uncertainty for any particular food (as for nutritive substances and non-traditional foods), but also means that the requirements of the standard itself are based on the uncertainty of this aspect of the definition of novel food. Therefore, the requirements of Standard 1.5.1, and potentially the standard itself, are subject to uncertainty when they should be objective and clearly interpretable by any who read it.
Furthermore, the recommendations provided to FSANZ by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) are not legal decisions and are not included in the Code. Therefore, although these recommendations do provide some guidance on whether a food may be considered novel or not, the fact that they are not included in the Code means they do not provide legal certainty.
Although the problems identified above create uncertainty in the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods, the intent of these provisions in the Code is clear; that is, to place a level of regulatory scrutiny on certain substances and foods to ensure they are safe for consumption before they are sold in Australia and New Zealand. This principle is important and has been retained during the development of potential alternative approaches to their regulation.
The definitions of nutritive substance, non-traditional food and novel food in the Code are reproduced below:
|nutritive substance means a substance not normally consumed as a food in itself and not normally used as an ingredient of food, but |
|which, after extraction and/or refinement, or synthesis, is intentionally added to a food to achieve a nutritional purpose, and |
|includes vitamins, minerals, amino acids, electrolytes and nucleotides. |
| |
|non-traditional food means – |
| |
|(a) a food that does not have a history of human consumption in Australia or New Zealand; or |
|(b) a substance derived from a food, where that substance does not have a history of human consumption in Australia or New Zealand |
|other than as a component of that food; or |
|(c) any other substance, where that substance, or the source from which it is derived, does not have a history of human consumption as|
|a food in Australia or New Zealand. |
| |
|novel food means a non-traditional food and the food requires an assessment of the public health and safety considerations having |
|regard to – |
| |
|(a) the potential for adverse effects in humans; or |
|(b) the composition or structure of the food; or |
|(c) the process by which the food has been prepared; or |
|(d) the source from which it is derived; or |
|(e) patterns and levels of consumption of the food; or |
|(f) any other relevant matters. |
2.1.3 Current consideration of nutritive substances and novel foods
Consideration of whether a substance or food meets the definition of nutritive substance or novel food is currently made on a case-by-case basis. Some nutritive substances are specifically referred to in the current definition in Standard 1.1.1 (such as vitamins and minerals) and these are quite clearly prohibited unless permitted in the Code. However, for other potential nutritive substances, it is difficult to be certain whether they meet the current definition or not. These difficulties are explored in more detail below in section 2.1.2.
Industry can make its own decisions, or seek the views of regulators before marketing products. In addition, food enforcement agencies may make a decision on products that are in the market. However, these decisions are subject to the lack of clarity described above.
With respect to novel foods, the FSANZ Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) provides recommendations to FSANZ on whether certain foods meet the definition of novel food. These recommendations are not legal decisions and are not included in the Code; they provide guidance rather than legal certainty.
Despite the recommendations of the ACNF not being legal decisions or resulting in changes to the Code, the process that supports the operation of the ACNF has worked well since the committee was formed in February 2008. FSANZ and a number of food enforcement agencies are members of the ACNF and enquiries can be made by industry, other regulators and the community with respect to whether, in the view of the ACNF, a food may meet the definition of novel food or not. Further details of the ACNF, including its Modus Operandi, Terms of Reference and Membership are provided at Attachment D.
At present, there is no such process in place for the consideration of whether a substance might meet the definition of nutritive substance or not.
2.2 The Regulatory Problem
The regulatory problem is that there are various substances that may potentially enter the food supply, for which there may be some uncertainty with respect to their safety for human consumption. This is not to say that these substances are unsafe. Rather, there may not be an immediate body of evidence to establish safety for all of these substances. Regulators consider that these substances should be subject to some form of regulatory pre-market assessment, in order to establish that they are safe for human consumption, before they are added to the food supply.
FSANZ recognises that the regulatory problem is not adequately addressed by the current regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code. Foods and substances that warrant pre-market assessment are not necessarily characterised by having a nutritive function or by being non-traditional. Therefore, some of these foods and substances are not adequately captured by the current prohibitions in the Code for nutritive substances and novel foods and are therefore entering the market without an appropriate level of pre-market assessment. In addition, a number of foods and substances captured by these definitions do not warrant pre-market assessment.
FSANZ also recognises that primary foods, such as fruit, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, milk, eggs, nuts, seeds and fish; and substances derived from primary foods as a result of minimal processing are likely to be safe. However, certain microbiological organisms that do not have an established history of safe use and highly extracted substances that are added back to foods at high levels or added to foods that would not normally contain them do warrant a pre-market assessment before they are sold as food.
FSANZ has investigated potential alternative approaches to addressing the regulatory problem and these are addressed in section 3 of this paper.
2.3 Scope of this paper
Food additives, vitamins and minerals and processing aids are regulated separately in the Code (Standards 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 respectively) and have not been included in the scope of this paper. Thus, any reference to the addition of substances to foods throughout this document excludes these categories of substances. Food produced using gene technology and irradiated foods are also regulated separately in the Code and are subject to separate pre-market assessment requirements. These foods have also not been included in the scope of this paper.
Part 2.9 of the Code includes a number of standards for special purpose foods. These standards include explicit permissions for the addition of certain nutritive substances to specific special purpose foods. The potential impact on standards in Part 2.9 of the Code resulting from any change in the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods will be explored as this review progresses, but have not been included in this Consultation Paper.
Proposed work by FSANZ on reviewing the infant formula products standard (Standard 2.9.1) and the formulated supplementary sports foods standard (Standard 2.9.4) will inform and be informed by this review. However, current work by FSANZ on creating the new Standard 2.9.5 for Foods for Special Medical Purposes is nearing completion and will not be affected by this review.
This paper focusses on the problems associated with the definitions of nutritive substance and non-traditional food, as well as the uncertainty created in Standard 1.5.1 by the wording of the definition of novel food.
This paper describes the elements of a proposed alternative regulatory approach developed by FSANZ. It does not recommend any changes to the Code at this stage. Further details of any potential new regulatory approach, including the nature of how the Code might need to be amended, will be explored if this project progresses to a Proposal. In addition, future work on this project will include consideration of appropriate drafting practices to ensure that requirements in the Code are not ambiguous.
Comments received in response to this consultation paper will assist FSANZ in further work on this project.
3. Regulatory Options
3.1 Possible options
In response to the regulatory problem outlined in the previous section, FSANZ has considered various alternative options.
3.1.1 Status Quo
Recognising the current regulatory issues associated with the definitions of nutritive substance and novel food, FSANZ considers that maintaining the status quo is not a satisfactory option. Therefore, the options presented below reflect potential changes to the current regulatory position.
3.1.2 Use of a non-regulatory approach
Non-regulatory approaches, for example an industry code of practice, warrant consideration. However, it is unlikely that non-regulatory approaches, on their own, will provide greater clarity and certainty for industry if the current definitions of nutritive substance and novel food remain in the Code. Non-regulatory approaches in conjunction with a revised regulatory approach may enhance the overall regulation of these foods. FSANZ will undertake additional consideration of non-regulatory approaches as part of the continuing work on this project.
3.1.3 Consider new definitions for nutritive substances and novel foods
In 2007, FSANZ completed a review of Standard 1.5.1 (Proposal P291) that amended the previous definition of novel food in an attempt to make it more objective.
Proposal P291 resulted in the current definitions of ‘non-traditional food’ and ‘novel food’ in the Standard. Guidance material was developed to assist in determining whether a food might be subject to the definitions and the ACNF was formed. However, the problems identified in section 2 above make it clear that the definitions of novel food and of nutritive substance are not sufficiently objective or clear enough in a regulatory sense.
This highlights the difficulty of developing appropriate definitions that make clear the substances and foods considered to require pre-market assessment to establish safety.
This Consultation Paper has highlighted that terms such as ‘novel‘, non-traditional’ and ‘nutritive’ do not adequately encompass all foods and substances which should have a pre-market assessment, while also capturing some foods that do not warrant pre-market assessment. FSANZ’s initial focus was to address the deficiencies of the existing definitions. However, improving the definitions, or drafting new definitions, that capture the types of foods and substances that we consider require pre-market assessment has proven difficult and subject to some of the same deficiencies noted in section 2.1 of this paper. Therefore, FSANZ considers that definitions such as these should no longer be the trigger for a FSANZ pre-market assessment of foods and substances, and that an alternative regulatory approach should be considered.
3.1.4 Consider international approaches to nutritive substances and novel foods.
The general approach to the regulation of novel foods and nutritive substances taken by other major international jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), the United States of America (USA) and Canada is one of ‘exclusion unless permitted’. Permission is gained on the basis of a satisfactory safety assessment and, in some jurisdictions, an assessment of efficacy.
Each of these jurisdictions has slightly different definitions (or none at all) for nutritive substances and novel foods in their respective food legislation. These jurisdictions also have separate regulatory arrangements for supplements that are distinct from food regulations. These supplement regulations include specific definitions for food supplements (EU), fortified foods (EU), dietary supplements (USA), natural health products (Canada). In addition, New Zealand has a separate regulation for supplemented foods. The latter products are generally regulated separately to foods, under alternative legislation that permits access to the market. The key elements of the approach for each of these countries, in the regulation of novel foods and nutritive substances are noted below:
|Jurisdiction |Regulatory requirements |
|European Union |Pre-approval is required for all novel foods and substances that have not been used for human consumption to a |
| |significant degree in the EU before 15 May 1997. Before marketing a novel food ingredient, companies must apply |
| |to a EU country authority for authorisation, presenting scientific information and a safety assessment report. |
| |The competent authority decides if additional assessment is necessary. The product can be marketed if no |
| |additional assessment is necessary, and if the European Commission and EU countries do not object. Before |
| |approving, the Commission asks the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health for an opinion. Some novel |
| |foods can undergo a simplified assessment procedure, which can result in faster approval (for novel foods that |
| |are considered ‘substantially equivalent’ to existing foods). |
| |Food Supplements undergo a similar approval process. |
|USA |A pre-market, safety evaluation is required for all substances added to food that have no history of use prior to|
| |1958. Using published scientific information or history of use pre-dating1958, manufacturers may seek GRAS status|
| |(self-reported or Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) affirmed) for their substances. For other substances e.g. |
| |additives, formal pre-market approval must be sought from the US FDA. Dietary supplements’ generally do not |
| |require registration with or approval from the USFDA before marketing, but the manufacturer must ensure the |
| |product is safe before it is marketed. The USFDA is responsible for post-market, safety monitoring of these |
| |dietary supplements. |
|Canada |All novel foods are assessed by Health Canada based on a pre-market, safety assessment submitted by a |
| |manufacturer. Natural Health Products must also undergo a pre-market review of safety, efficacy and quality. |
|New Zealand* |Pre-market approval is required for novel foods and substances in compliance with the Code when products are sold|
| |as foods in New Zealand. A New-Zealand-only standard (Supplemented Food Standard, which is not part of the Code),|
| |introduced in 2010, permits the marketing of food-type dietary supplements with levels of added vitamins, |
| |minerals and other substances higher than those permitted, or not permitted, by the Code. Provided that these |
| |supplemented foods are not considered as complementary medicines by Australia, these products may be sold as food|
| |in Australia under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) without having to comply with the |
| |Code. |
* Approach taken to supplemented foods only. All other foods assessed under the Code.
Each of these international regulatory approaches incorporates a pre-market assessment aspect for certain foods and substances added to foods, which is consistent with the intent of the regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code. The exact mechanisms of pre-market assessment differ between jurisdictions, and some of the elements of these approaches are also subject to limitations. However, FSANZ has incorporated aspects of these international approaches, which may be of benefit in an Australian and New Zealand food regulatory context, into the development of the proposed alternative regulatory approach described below.
3.1.5 Consider an alternative regulatory approach
Recognising the current regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods in the Code requires change, FSANZ has developed an alternative regulatory approach that addresses the problems described in section 2 above. The proposed alternative regulatory approach acknowledges that the majority of foods in the market are safe for consumption while also maintaining the intent behind the current regulation of nutritive substances and novel foods. That is, a level of regulatory scrutiny is required for certain substances and foods to ensure they are safe for consumption before they are sold in Australia and New Zealand. The proposed alternative regulatory approach is described in more detail below.
4. Proposed Alternative Regulatory Approach
The key principle in the proposed alternative approach is to classify new foods and substances to be added to foods as eligible or non-eligible. Eligible foods will be permitted without the need for a pre-market assessment by FSANZ, while non-eligible foods will be prohibited by the Code. Non-eligible foods may be subject to pre-market assessment and if assessed as being safe, may then be included in the Code as eligible foods.
In order to determine whether a new food or food-derived substance is an eligible food or not, ‘eligible food’ criteria will be included in the Code. A food or substance will need to meet one of these criteria in order to be considered an eligible food.
Under the proposed alternative regulatory approach, substances intended to be covered by the current definitions of nutritive substance and novel food would be considered non-eligible and would require permission in the Code before use. The current pre-market assessment requirements set out in the Code for food additives, vitamins and minerals, processing aids, food produced using gene technology and irradiated foods would be retained. Foods and substances already permitted in the Code for these categories would be considered eligible foods because they are explicitly permitted in the Code.
In general, food-derived substances would not be eligible foods and would be prohibited by the Code. These substances would require pre-market assessment before they could be permitted in the Code. The prohibition in the Code of foods and substances that are not eligible foods is intended to ensure that food-derived substances, in particular, are subject to greater regulatory oversight. This would give greater certainty for regulators and for industry.
The key change is a clearer recognition in the Code that most foods are well characterised and are safe once prepared for human consumption. The proposed alternative regulatory approach would include objective criteria in the Code to describe foods that are considered safe. Foods that meet these criteria would be considered eligible foods and would not be subject to pre-market assessment by FSANZ before they could be sold.
The proposed alternative regulatory approach recognises that the current application process to permit substances and foods in the Code is subject to timelines that generally take around one year to be completed. It is unlikely that all food-derived substances would require this level of assessment to ascertain whether they are safe for human consumption. It is worth noting that many of the substances and foods discussed by the ACNF have been considered safe and have not been considered to require an application to amend the Code. The proposed alternative regulatory approach introduces the concept of establishing a process that would provide an appropriate level of assessment of non-eligible foods to determine whether an application is required to seek permission for the non-eligible food in the Code.
One of the main day to day problems currently experienced by industry and regulators relates to the classification of nutritive substances and novel foods due to the ambiguity of the definitions. The proposed alternative regulatory approach described in section 3 of this paper does not rely on these definitions to assist in identifying foods that are not eligible.
However, the approach also aims to ensure that the uncertainty associated with Standard 1.5.1 (as a result of the wording of the definition of novel food) is resolved. It is important to ensure that any requirements that would apply to foods and substances are clearly written in the Code. This aspect of ensuring clarity will be addressed at a later stage when any potential changes to the Code are investigated.
The proposed alternative regulatory approach shares some aspects of international approaches that could be effective in the context of the Australian and New Zealand food regulatory system.
The proposed alternative regulatory approach is described in more detail below.
4.1 Elements of the proposed alternative regulatory approach
There are nine elements to the proposed alternative regulatory approach and the rationale for each element is briefly discussed.
1. Remove the current definitions of nutritive substance and novel foods from the Code (and their associated requirements for pre-market assessment).
Reason: Revisions to these definitions are unlikely to yield any greater regulatory certainty than currently prevails.
2. The Code will include a provision that a food or substance can be sold without requiring pre-market assessment by FSANZ if it is an eligible food. A food or substance is eligible if:
It meets certain criteria for eligible foods (see element 3), or
It is otherwise explicitly permitted in the Code.
Reason: This element recognises that the majority of foods in the market are safe for human consumption and makes it clear that they would not require a pre-market assessment by FSANZ before they are sold.
This element also recognises that the Code includes permissions for the sale of other types of approved foods and substances, such as vitamins and minerals, food additives, processing aids, foods produced using gene technology and irradiated foods. Chapter 2 of the Code also includes standards for various commodity based products and special purpose foods.
3. Include eligible food criteria in the Code.
Reason: Rather than attempting to list every possible food that does not require pre-market assessment, eligible food criteria would be included in the Code. The eligible food criteria would describe the characteristics of those foods that do not require pre-market assessment.
FSANZ is recommending the use of objective criteria to make it clear that the majority of foods do not pose a risk threat to public health and safety, and that these foods can be sold without the need for pre-market clearance by FSANZ (see Section 3.3). These are foods that do not need pre-market clearance at present, such as primary foods and their processed derivatives.
4. The Code will prohibit all foods that are not eligible foods.
Reason: A specific prohibition in the Code would provide the regulatory certainty that foods that are not eligible foods cannot be sold as food in Australia and New Zealand.
Foods that are not eligible would require explicit permission in the Code before they could be sold. As per the current application arrangements, anyone would be able to submit an application to FSANZ to have a non-eligible food assessed and permitted in the Code. FSANZ could also prepare a proposal to include permission for non-eligible foods in the Code. If the outcome of an application or proposal is that a food is not safe for sale that food would continue to be prohibited. The types of foods that would not meet the eligible food criteria include certain microbiological organisms, substances that are highly extracted and substances that are extracted and added back to foods at higher levels than are naturally present, or added to foods that would not normally contain that substance. The intention of the approach is to ensure that these foods and substances are subject to an appropriate level of pre-market assessment before they could be sold as food.
Substances derived by selective extractions from foods would often require a pre-market analysis by FSANZ under the proposed alternative regulatory approach, as is currently the case for novel food substances and nutritive substances. Note that a minority of the ACNF enquiries have been for substances other than whole foods and their derivatives (see Attachment B).
5. Maintain specific standards and criteria for the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods, and include L amino acids
Reason: Vitamins, minerals and L amino acids are well characterised (they can be identified independently) and therefore specific requirements may be defined.
Vitamins and minerals are currently regulated in Standard 1.3.2 and permissions for L amino acids could be added to this Standard. In the case of vitamins and minerals, identifying these in the Code independent of nutritive substances also acknowledges that they can be added to foods for other purposes. Other substances currently listed in the existing definition of nutritive substances, such as electrolytes, nucleotides and D amino acids would require a safety assessment by FSANZ unless they met the objective criteria for permission (elements 2 and 3) or are already permitted in the Code.
6. Establish a mechanism for an appropriate level of assessment for foods that are not eligible foods.
Reason: As it is likely that only some of the foods not meeting the eligible food criteria would pose a threat to human safety; rather than require an Application for all new foods, substances and processes, an assessment process would screen these foods to determine whether there are likely to be any safety concerns or not[2].
The exact nature of this assessment step would need to be characterised further as this project progresses. However, it may be possible that an assessment process could be established to handle enquiries relating to whether foods that are not eligible are likely to pose a threat to human safety. Based on certain information requirements, an assessment may determine that a food that does not meet the eligible food criteria is:
safe for human consumption; or
is not safe for human consumption; or
there is insufficient information available to establish safety.
This assessment could be conducted by FSANZ, utilising external expertise as required and certain information would need to be provided. A similar assessment process is currently in place with the FSANZ ACNF; however the outcomes of the ACNF’s considerations are not legal decisions, are provided for advice only and are subject to the regulatory problems associated with novel foods outlined in section 2.
It is important to note that this assessment element would be focussed on the safety of foods that are not eligible foods. It would not include any assessment of whether a food meets the eligible food criteria outlined in element 3 above. The exploration of other avenues to assess whether a food may meet the eligible food criteria has not been pursued in this paper but will be investigated if this project progresses to a proposal.
Additional detail on the concept of the assessment, in the context of this element of the approach, is provided below in section 4.3.
7. Use the FSANZ proposal process to recommend the Code be amended to include permission for foods that do not meet the eligible food criteria, but are considered safe after an element 6 assessment.
Reason: This provides regulatory certainty for foods that would not be eligible foods and have been considered likely to be safe under the element 6 assessment process and provide the opportunity for stakeholder comment on the opinion arising from the initial risk assessment process.
The proposal process would be utilised for those foods that do not meet the eligible food criteria, but would be considered to be safe after assessment under element 6. These foods would be included in a proposal that would outline the reasons why these foods are considered safe.
The proposal would also recommend that these foods be permitted in the Code. As part of the proposal process, FSANZ would release each proposal for public comment. It is possible that public submissions may raise issues that would require additional consideration for some foods included in a proposal. In such cases, the Code may not be amended to permit these foods until the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
8. Foods that do not meet the eligible food criteria, and are not considered safe (or for which safety cannot be established) after an element 6 assessment will remain prohibited.
Reason: This provides regulatory certainty for foods that would not be eligible foods and for which safety cannot be established under an element 6 assessment. These foods would continue to be prohibited.
Foods that the element 6 assessment process concludes are unsafe, or where there is lack of evidence of safety, would remain prohibited. An Application to amend the Code would be required to permit the food (as is currently the case for nutritive substances and novel foods).
9. Food suppliers must hold evidence of safety for new foods that meet the eligible food criteria
Reason: This ensures that new foods that may meet the eligible food criteria are safe for consumption.
New foods that meet one of the eligible food criteria would also be required to satisfy an additional requirement that the supplier must have evidence the food is safe for the general population as prepared and consumed (it is expected that evidential criteria will be developed). Note that this is already a requirement in some jurisdictions. More detail on what might constitute a ‘new’ food and the type of evidence to be held by suppliers is included in section 4.4.
An illustration of the elements of this approach is provided below (Figure 1), followed by possible outcomes of four products, three of which were previously assessed by the ACNF (Figure 2).
[pic]
Figure 1: Conceptual schema of the proposed alternative regulatory approach
[pic]
Figure 2: Four examples of the proposed alternative regulatory approach
4.2 Eligible food criteria[3]
The inclusion of eligible food criteria in the Code would serve two main purposes. Firstly, the criteria would identify those foods and substances that are typically regarded as having no general public health and safety issues as consumed. These would be considered eligible foods and would therefore be permitted to be sold as food in Australia and New Zealand without the need for pre-market assessment by FSANZ. Secondly, the prohibition on sale of foods that do not meet the criteria would, by exclusion, identify those foods for which there is uncertainty with regard to their safety. These foods would not be eligible foods and would be prohibited by the Code. These foods would require pre-market assessment by FSANZ and be listed in the Code before they could be sold as food.
As described in element 2 of the proposed alternative regulatory approach, a food that meets an eligible food criterion would be considered an eligible food in the context of the Code. The Code would include a provision to permit the sale of eligible foods without the need for a FSANZ pre-market assessment. The criteria are based on those foodstuffs, ingredients and substances that are well characterised and do not present a safety concern when consumed.
It is important that the criteria do not inadvertently impose additional regulatory scrutiny on existing commonly used foods or ingredients.
The criteria are intended to provide clarity in regard to the regulation of microorganisms and extracted substances in particular, when they are used as foods or ingredients in foods.
Microorganisms: At present, the Code does not include any specific provisions for the use of microorganisms in this way. The first eligibility criterion would utilise the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) list of microorganisms that have been assessed by EFSA and concluded to have a Qualified Presumption of Safety. These microorganisms would be considered to meet the eligibility criterion and therefore would not be required to undergo a pre-market assessment by FSANZ.
Extracted substances: The general concern for products obtained from natural sources is the potential safety impact of the use of a substance in a food where it would not be expected, or that would result in a higher level of dietary exposure to the substance than that which already occurs by virtue of the consumption of foods that naturally contain that substance within a known compositional range. There is generally little concern when extracted substances are added back to the original food group at a concentration consistent with the levels that would naturally be present in foods within the food group. In some processing industries, this is already done in-line and in others ‘restoration’ takes place when adding substances at the conclusion of processing.
The eligible food criteria are listed below. Each criterion is accompanied by a brief rationale for its inclusion and some notes on the types of foods that would or would not be subject to each criterion. Detailed notes of clarification for some of the criteria are included in section 4.2.1. Examples of the types of foods and substances that would meet each criterion (and therefore be considered eligible foods) are provided in Table A1 in Attachment A. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 include comparison of how the eligible food criteria compare with current Code requirements and with previous considerations of the ACNF respectively.
|Eligible Foods Criteria |
| |
|1. Microorganisms that EFSA has concluded have a Qualified Presumption of Safety and that are cultured to maintain genetic stability. |
| |
|Rationale: In practice we have almost no control over microorganisms at the moment, apart from those used to manufacture enzymes. |
|Defining a list provides a higher level of safety at minimal cost. |
| |
|2. Primary foods[4]. |
| |
|Rationale: This is the case as now, except for Novel Foods. Current controls in the Code for primary foods include prohibited |
|botanicals, preparation instructions, labelling requirements, natural contaminants limits and MRLs. Some primary foods have been |
|considered by the ACNF, however these foods have either been considered not to be novel, or adequately controlled by other controls in|
|the Code. Primary foods will therefore not be subject to pre-market assessment by FSANZ before they can be sold. |
| |
|2a. Primary foods that have been enzymatically modified (apart from polymerisation), fractionated, fermented using micro-organisms |
|that meet criterion (1), and/or physically processed, including chopping, cutting, peeling, grinding, squeezing, pressing, steeping, |
|infusion, distillation, and filtering. |
| |
|Rationale: These processes do not increase safety risk if carried out under good hygienic and manufacturing practice. Simple foods (eg|
|sugars) that have been enzymatically polymerised often result in different structures than those commonly found naturally, and |
|therefore warrant a more extensive safety assessment before use in foods. Products made using these above processes currently do not |
|require a pre-market safety assessment. |
| |
|2b. Dried or concentrated forms of primary foods and those in 2a. |
| |
|Rationale: These processes do not increase safety risk if carried out under good hygienic and manufacturing practice. Products made |
|using these processes currently do not require a pre-market safety assessment |
| |
| |
| |
|3. Extracts of primary foods, including processed as 2a and 2b above, which are added to foods at a concentration consistent with that|
|present if the source foodstuff were used as an ingredient. In this context extracts still contain the range of extracted substances, |
|and are not subjected to further fractionation. |
| |
|Rationale: These processes do not increase safety risk if carried out under good hygienic and manufacturing practice. An additional |
|requirement is introduced on level because of the processes’ capability of concentration of some substances. Products made using these|
|processes currently do not generally require a pre-market safety assessment. |
| |
|4. Substances[5] obtained from 2, 2a, 2b and 3 above provided that: |
| |
|4a. when they are added to the original food group from which they are derived it is at a concentration within the natural range of |
|that food group. |
| |
|Rationale: This is intended, in a simple manner, to limit the over-addition of naturally occurring substances while not requiring |
|regulatory intervention unnecessarily. Note – this does not necessarily quantify increased exposure or change in intention of use. |
| |
|4b. when they are added to other food groups and mixed foods: |
| |
|i. the level is consistent with that present if the source foodstuff were used as an ingredient, and |
|ii. the processes have not resulted in extraction or selective production of a specific substance. |
| |
|Rationale: This is intended, in a simple manner, to limit the over-addition of naturally occurring substances while not requiring |
|regulatory intervention unnecessarily. Note – this does not necessarily quantify increased exposure or change in intention of use. |
4.2.1 Notes regarding criteria 2-4 above
It is not proposed to prohibit the removal of substances from foodstuffs for quality reasons, e.g. refining and deodorisation of oils, enzyme-assisted removal of proteins and tannins from fruit-based beverages, colour removal from extracted syrups, decaffeinating coffee.
We acknowledge that there may be some cross-over when determining if food or substance meets criterion 3 or 4, but as the end-points are similar this is not expected to be a major issue in determining whether a product is an eligible food or not.
It is recognised that some foods within a food group may naturally contain some substances at higher levels than other, perhaps more commonly consumed, foods within that food group. This may result in a substance being added to foods within a food group at higher levels than might naturally be present in some foods in that food group. This is not considered a to be a public health and safety concern due to the potential for the substance to already be consumed if certain foods within a food group were consumed or used as ingredients in foods within that food group (that is, there is already potential dietary exposure to the substance from consumption of existing foods).
While substances meeting criterion 4a would be considered eligible, those same substances would not have permission to be added to other food groups. However, they could be in the final food if included as a legitimate part of an ingredient. For example, adding oryzanol as an ingredient to a snack food would not meet the permission criteria, but rice bran oil legitimately containing oryzanol could be an ingredient.
Betaine extracted from sugar beet is an example of a substance that would fit into category 4 above. Betaine is a substance extracted from a primary food. If it were intended to be added to any other food group, or to a mixed food, it would not meet the permission criteria. If it were intended to be added to products in the same food group (possibly a vegetable soup mix) then it would be permitted up to a level naturally found in that food group.
Questions for submitters – Eligibility criteria:
Q1. Will the eligibility criteria efficiently identify when a pre-market assessment is required for a food or substance?
Q2. Do you have any suggestions for improvement of the eligibility criteria? Please provide details of your suggestions, including justification or rationale for your suggestions, and examples.
Q3. Can you identify examples of substances that may not meet the eligible food criteria, but should be considered eligible foods? For example, foods or substances that are well characterised and understood to be safe, but may be considered non-eligible because of the above criteria? If so, please provide examples, including justification or rationale and any suggestions for improvement of the criteria.
4.3 Assessment of non-eligible foods
The fit-for-purpose assessment process introduced in element 6 of the approach is similar in concept to the current ACNF process. The assessment process would incorporate certain information requirements that must be supplied to FSANZ and would involve consideration of the chemical nature of the food. The objective of this assessment process would be to determine whether additional pre-market assessment is required for certain foods. Element 7 of the approach provides a potential mechanism to have the outcomes of this assessment process included in a proposal to amend the Code to permit the non-eligible foods on the basis that they are safe for consumption. This proposal would provide the community with the chance to comment on whether they agree with the proposed changes to the Code. It is possible that additional information would be provided by the community through this consultation process and that the information provided may require additional consideration before any changes to the Code could be made. More information on the ACNF, including the assessment process it follows, is included in Attachment D.
4.4 New foods that meet eligibility criteria
Element 9 of the approach (see section 4.1) describes a requirement for new foods that meet the eligible food criteria. New foods could be defined as those that have not been sold as a food in Australia or New Zealand before a particular date (for example, the date of gazettal of a new standard). The concept of new foods being required to meet this requirement is introduced to provide added assurance that all foods which meet the permission criteria are safe without the need for listing all permitted foodstuffs.
If a food is processed using a technology not generally applied to that group of foods, the processor must have evidence that the process does not have a negative impact on food safety or composition compared with typical current processing and storage.
FSANZ recognises that the food industry already undertakes measures to ensure the foods they supply and sell are safe for human consumption; and that some jurisdictions require industry to hold evidence to support this. However, the nature of the information required by industry and across jurisdictions is not uniform.
FSANZ expects that evidential criteria would be developed, but without imposing an unnecessary burden on industry. Bearing this in mind, FSANZ would appreciate submissions on potential evidentiary requirements that should be held by industry.
Question for submitters – Evidence requirements for new foods:
Q4. Can you provide comment on suitable evidentiary requirements for the type of information/data that should be held by industry to support the safety of human consumption of new foods?
4.5 Suggested outcomes of the proposed approach
Under the proposed approach, a substance or a food would generally fall into one of three broad regulatory categories.
1. The substance or food meets one of the eligibility criteria in the Code.
2. The substance or food is defined in the Code and requires specific approval before use. Permission may be provided via an Application to amend the Code.
3. The substance or food does not meet either of the above categories. Permission may be provided:
(a) via a proposal prepared by FSANZ, based on a pre-market assessment, OR
(b) via an application. This may arise from the pre-market assessment identifying concerns or if there was insufficient evidence to conclude safety.
These outcomes are also illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 in section 4.1 of this paper.
5 Comparison of proposed new approach with current Code and ACNF
5.1 Comparison with current Code requirements
FSANZ has assessed the outcomes of the proposed new approach with respect to various types of foods, and compared this to the current regulation of these foods in the Code, as outlined below:
• For food additives, vitamins and minerals, processing aids, foods produced using gene technology and irradiated foods there would be no change; an Application to FSANZ to include these foods in the Code is already required. It is proposed that this requirement be extended to L amino acids.
• For ‘traditional’ foodstuffs and ingredients, there is currently no pre-market assessment by FSANZ and it is expected that these materials will be permitted i.e. no change.
• ‘Non-traditional’ foodstuffs, ingredients and processes are currently intended to be captured by the definition of ‘non-traditional food’ and where relevant by the definition of ‘novel food’ in Standard 1.5.1. Although it is the intention that there be a pre-market clearance by FSANZ, in reality only some of these are referred to the ACNF and even fewer are subsequently included in the Code. Some are published by FSANZ in the list of ACNF outcomes, but have no legal standing. In the proposed new approach, these may meet the permission criteria, but a safety assessment would be specifically required to be done by the manufacturer to meet regulatory requirements (yet to be defined, but expected to be similar to the current information required by the ACNF).
• Nutritive substances as defined in the Code must not be added to food unless expressly permitted in the Code. In reality, only some are referred to FSANZ and only a few are subsequently included in the Code. In the proposed new approach, a pre-market assessment by FSANZ would most likely be required. If the use of the substance met a criterion for permission, a pre-market assessment by FSANZ would not be required, but a safety assessment would be required to be done by the manufacturer along with having to meet any other Code conditions.
Table 1 illustrates the current and proposed regulatory approach for foods requiring Code permission before use. The shaded boxes indicate where changes are proposed between the current system and the proposed approach.
In addition to permissions, the Code contains a large number of restrictions which are beyond the scope of this diagram.
Table 1: Pre-Market Approval requirements
Current
| |Foodstuffs |Ingredients |Substances |
|Foods requiring pre-market clearance |Irradiated Food | |
|(Part 1.5) | | |
| |Food produced using Gene Technology | |
| |Novel Foods |
|Substances added to food (express | | |Food additives |
|permission required) (Part 1.3) | | | |
| | | |Vitamins & minerals |
| | | |Processing aids |
|Express permission required (Std | | |Nutritive substances |
|1.1.1) | | | |
| | | | |
|Proposed | | | |
| |Foodstuffs |Ingredients |Substances |
|Foods requiring pre-market clearance |Irradiated Food | |
|(Part 1.5) | | |
| |Food produced using Gene Technology | |
|Substances added to food (express | | |Food additives |
|permission required) | | | |
|(Part 1.3) | | | |
| | | |Vitamins, minerals and L amino |
| | | |acids |
| | | |Processing aids |
|New Approach –pre-market assessment |Only foodstuffs and ingredients that don’t meet an eligible food |All (unless meet an eligible food |
|required |criterion |criterion) |
| |Microorganisms | |
| |(only if don’t meet a permission criterion) | |
5.2 Comparison with previous ACNF conclusions
An analysis comparing past conclusions of the ACNF against the likely outcomes of the proposed new approach has also been undertaken (Tables B1 and B2 of Attachment B). In most cases, the outcome (requirement for pre-market assessment, or not, by FSANZ) is the same. However, there are differences for some of the foods the ACNF concluded needed a safety assessment but which under the proposed new scheme would be permitted, provided the supplier held evidence of their safety as used. For instance:
some primary foods and their concentrates would meet the eligibility criteria, e.g. ackee fruit, agaricus mushroom, blackberry leaves and roots, perilla oil, stevia (crushed leaf), dong quai (powdered root) and slippery elm bark powder.
Generally, the ACNF had insufficient information to come to a conclusion of safety, and in some cases there were concerns regarding historical medicinal uses.
extracts of foodstuffs that are added to foods at a concentration consistent with that present if the source foodstuff were used as an ingredient, e.g. white kidney bean extract, which ACNF considered might not be suitable for all population groups.
Recognising that some of these considerations are not recent, and that some were on the basis of more information being required, the list of discrepancies is likely to be shorter than that outlined. Nevertheless, where the ACNF concluded that a particular food was not safe as prepared, it would be prudent for FSANZ to examine these decisions and consider prohibiting some of these foods as part of a Proposal.
FSANZ recognises that the eligible food criteria will require additional ‘road-testing’ and consultation during the Proposal process, and they may require revision.
However, none of the foodstuffs and substances in Table B2 that were considered to be novel have gone through the application process for assessment by FSANZ. So, although these foods were considered novel, there is currently limited regulatory clarity and support for taking enforcement action should these products be sold in the market.
Questions for submitters
Overall approach:
Q5. Are you supportive of the general approach described in this paper?
Q6. Do you have any suggestions for alternative approaches, or aspects of the approach that could be improved? Please provide details of your suggestions, including a justification or rationale for your suggestions, and examples.
Q7. If you have any concerns about the proposed approach please provide details of your concerns, including a rationale for them and any examples that may assist in describing your concerns.
Industry:
Q8. Will your organisation submit more (or fewer) requests under the proposed assessment of non-eligible foods element (see element 6 in section 4.1)?
Q9. Will your organisation submit more or fewer applications to have foods approved in the Code?
Consumers:
Q10. FSANZ encourages comment on the potential impacts of the proposed alternative regulatory approach on consumers.
6. Next steps
FSANZ will consider submissions received in response to this Consultation Paper. However, before FSANZ can recommend changes to the Code, it must prepare a proposal.
The proposal would include more detailed assessment of the issues and potential regulatory options, including the potential impact on other areas of the Code and other regulations in Australia and New Zealand such as the requirements set out in jurisdictional Food Acts and the New Zealand Food (Supplemented Food) Standard. A Proposal would also include a regulatory impact statement (RIS) and benefit cost analysis and provide the opportunity for additional public consultation on the approach and on draft amendments to the Code that may be recommended.
Attachments
A. Examples of foods that meet the eligible food criteria
B. Evaluation of approach against ACNF views
C. Summary of International Regulatory Systems
D. Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF)
E. List of questions for submitters
Attachment A – Examples of foods that meet the eligible food criteria
Table A1: Proposed eligible food criteria and examples of foods that would meet each criterion
| |Eligible food criteria |Examples of eligible foods |
| | |(foods that meet each criterion) |
|1. |Microorganisms that EFSA has concluded have a Qualified Presumption of Safety and that are |Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, |
| |cultured to maintain genetic stability |Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus amylovarus, Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus plantarum, |
| | |Lactococcus lactis, Leuconostoc lactis, |
| | |Streptococcus thermophilus. |
| | |NOTE: EFSA have concluded that bacteriophages will not have a Qualified Presumption of Safety, and each |
| | |phage/proposed use will need a specific evaluation. |
| |Primary foods |Primary food is defined for Standard 1.3.2 as fruit, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, milk, eggs, nuts, |
| | |seeds, and fish, and some of these are further defined in Chapter 2 standards. |
| |2a. Primary foods that have been enzymatically modified (apart from polymerisation), |Enzymatically modified: glucose syrup, interesterified fats, short-chain oligosaccharides, peptides |
| |fractionated, fermented using micro-organisms that meet criterion (1), and/or physically |Fractionated: soy protein isolate, milk protein concentrate, cocoa butter, winterised oils, oils obtained |
| |processed, including chopping, cutting, peeling, grinding, squeezing, pressing, steeping, |by solvent extraction, spreadable butter, |
| |infusion, distillation, and filtering |Fermented: yoghurt, vinegar, alcoholic beverages, traditional soy or fish sauces |
| |2b. Dried or concentrated forms of primary foods and those in 2a |Dried: instant coffee, powdered herbs, milk powder, freeze dried meat and vegetables |
| | |Concentrated: concentrated fruit juice, sugar syrups, protein concentrates |
|3. |Extracts of primary foods, including processed as 2a and 2b above, that are added to foods |Coffee extract, vanilla extract, |
| |at a concentration consistent with that present if the source foodstuff were used as an | |
| |ingredient. In this context extracts still contain the range of extracted substances, and | |
| |are not subjected to further fractionation. | |
|4. |Substances1 obtained from 2, 2a, 2b and 3 above provided that: | |
| |4a. when they are added to the original food group from which they are derived it is at a |Vitamin C from lemons added to orange juice |
| |concentration within the natural range of that food group2 |Galacto-oligosaccharides added to dairy products |
| | |Oryzanol added to rice bran oil |
| |4b. when they are added to other food groups and mixed foods |Anthocyanins from blueberries added to other foods |
| |the level is consistent with that present if the source foodstuff were used as an |Extracted spirulina colour where all the colouring is extracted – note that ‘spirulina blue’ would not meet|
| |ingredient, and |this criterion |
| |the processes have not resulted in extraction or selective production of a specific | |
| |substance. | |
1 Flavouring substances are not permitted unless they meet the conditions in Standard 1.3.1
2 Food group is defined as like products produced from a primary food
Attachment B – Evaluation of approach against ACNF views
This Attachment includes a comparison of previous outcomes of foods referred to the ACNF against the proposed eligible food criteria. This comparison provides an indication of the level of concurrence between these approaches with respect to whether a pre-market assessment is required. The foods and substances are grouped according to the new criteria.
Table B1 lists foods that the ACNF considered did not require a safety assessment, regardless of whether they were initially considered to be ‘non-traditional’.
Table B2 lists foods that the ACNF considered did require a safety assessment – note that this safety assessment requirement is only applicable to ‘non-traditional’ foods under the Novel Foods Standard.
Foods that the ACNF considered ‘traditional’ in terms of the Code definition do not require a safety assessment under the Novel Foods Standard, although FSANZ is able to apply prohibitions, restrictions or conditions in other sections of the Code if it identifies safety concerns.
Table B1: Comparison of foods previously considered to be NOT NOVEL (ie no safety assessment required by the ACNF/FSANZ) with the proposed permission criteria
|Foods considered by ACNF |Rationale for ACNF concluding no safety assessment |Food group in proposed permission criteria |Possible outcome under proposed criteria[6] |
| |required | | |
|Lactobacillus plantarum |Traditional use in foods in Australia and New |Microorganisms |Meets permission criteria on basis of EFSA |
|Lactobacillus acidophilus |Zealand. | |qualified presumption of safety. |
|amaranth seed |Where these foods were considered to be NEW by |2. Primary foods |Most of these foods would meet the permission |
|anise myrtle |ACNF/FSANZ (i.e. non-traditional), no safety | |criteria on the basis of being primary foods, such |
|bush tomato |concerns were identified after a preliminary risk | |as fruits, seeds, vegetables. |
|desert lime |profiling exercise. | | |
|edible insects | | |No assessment required. |
|evening primrose seed | | | |
|finger lime | | | |
|fresh bamboo shoots | | | |
|green coffee beans | | | |
|guanabana fruit | | | |
|hibiscus flower | | | |
|kakadu plum | | | |
|lavender | | | |
|lemon aspen fruit | | | |
|lemon myrtle | | | |
|long neck turtle | | | |
|manuka leaf and stem | | | |
|mintbush | | | |
|pigeon pea | | | |
|quandong fruit | | | |
|red seaweed | | | |
|riberry | | | |
|rivermint | | | |
|salt bush | | | |
|sea parsley | | | |
|sheep’s placenta | | | |
|wattle seed | | | |
|acerola frozen fruit pulp |Apart from the high pressure processed yoghurt, |2a. Primary foods that have been physically |Most of these foods would meet the permission |
|agave nectar |where these foods were considered to be NEW by |processed or fractionated |criteria on the basis of being |
|aloe vera (juice & pulp) |ACNF/FSANZ (i.e. non-traditional), no safety | |physically processed (e.g. agave nectar, aloe vera |
|argan oil |concerns were identified after a preliminary risk | |juice and pulp, acerola fruit pulp, camelina spice)|
|β-palmitin vegetable oil |profiling exercise. | | |
|caja frozen puree | | |fermented (e.g. water kefir, kimchi ) |
|camelina spice | | |or fractionated. |
|cashew frozen fruit pulp | | | |
|corn fibre | | |No assessment required. |
|cassava | | | |
|gac juice |High-pressure processed yoghurt: High pressure | | |
|goji juice |processing was a new processing technique for | | |
|graviola frozen fruit pulp |yoghurt. The processing did not result in any | | |
|high-pressure processed yoghurt |changes to the original yoghurt product. No safety | | |
|kapua (frozen puree) |concerns. | | |
|kimchi | | | |
|kombucha tea | | | |
|konjac | | | |
|mangosteen juice | | | |
|nata de coco | | | |
|oat fibre | | | |
|passionflower | | | |
|pistachia gum | | | |
|sea buckthorn juice | | | |
|sugarcane fibres and juice | | | |
|tigernut oil | | | |
|water kefir | | | |
|maca powder |These foods were considered non-traditional by |2b. Primary foods in dried or concentrated form |No assessment required. |
|mangosteen rind powder |ACNF/FSANZ but no safety concerns were identified | | |
| |after a preliminary risk profiling exercise. | | |
|apple polyphenol extract |These foods were considered non-traditional by |Extracts of foodstuffs that are added to foods at a|No assessment required. |
|grape pomace extract |ACNF/FSANZ but no safety concerns were identified |concentration consistent with that present if the | |
|grapeseed extract |after a preliminary risk profiling exercise. |source foodstuff were used as an ingredient | |
|green coffee extract | | | |
|rose petal extract | | | |
|soy protein extract | | | |
|tigernut milk extract | | | |
|valerian root extract | | | |
|Galactooligosaccharides |These foods were considered non-traditional by |Substances derived from foodstuffs through physical|The proposed uses of galactooligosaccharides and |
|lactoferrin from bovine milk in yoghurt |ACNF/FSANZ but no safety concerns were identified |or enzymatic processes |lactoferrin meet permission criterion 4a (added to |
|β-glucan derived from barley |after a preliminary risk profiling exercise. | |the original food group from which they are derived|
|konjac glucomannans | | |at a concentration within the natural range of that|
|lycopene-enriched tomato extracts | | |food group) as they were intended to be added to |
|mycoprotein from Fusarium venenatum | | |the original food group. |
|potato protein extract | | |No assessment required. |
| | | | |
| | | |The other substances were intended for addition to |
| | | |other food groups consistent with use as an |
| | | |ingredient and so meet permission criterion 4b (the|
| | | |level is consistent with that present if the source|
| | | |foodstuff were used as an ingredient, and |
| | | |the processes have not resulted in extraction or |
| | | |selective production). |
| | | |No assessment required. |
Table B2: Comparison of foods previously considered to be non-traditional and NOVEL by the ACNF/FSANZ with the proposed permission criteria
|Foods considered by ACNF |Rationale for ACNF concluding a safety assessment required (ie |Food group in proposed permission criteria |Possible outcome under proposed criteria |
| |Novel) | | |
|Heat killed Lactobacillus paracasei |ACNF/FSANZ considered this product to be novel because a number|Microorganisms |May meet this permission criterion because this |
| |of immune system related claims were associated with the heat | |organism is included in the EFSA list. However, it |
| |killed organism. | |is not clear whether this should apply to the heat |
| |It was unclear why the heat killed organism should have these | |killed organism (i.e. it would not be a probiotic |
| |purported effects when the live organism did not. Further | |if dead). |
| |assessment was considered necessary. | |Further examination would be required before |
| | | |concluding whether this food meets the exemption |
| | | |criterion. |
| |ACNF/FSANZ considered these products to be novel because: |Primary foods |These foods meet this permission criterion, but if |
| |Ackee fruit – the fruit should be consumed ripe. If consumed | |new food sources, suppliers would be required to |
|ackee fruit |unripe, it can be hazardous to health. This issue could be | |hold evidence that the food is safe for the general|
| |addressed by Standard 1.2.6 – Directions for Use and Storage. | |population as prepared and consumed. |
| |Agaricus mushroom, blackberry leaves and roots, Moringa | | |
| |oleifera leaf, olive leaf, gingko nuts – some concerns over | |Unless FSANZ adopted a specific intervention, no |
|agaricus mushroom |safety identified by ACNF/FSANZ. Often a lack of data to | |assessment would be required for these foods. |
|blackberry leaves and roots |establish safety and are associated with medicinal uses. | | |
|Moringa oleifera leaf |Hoodia gordonii – appetite suppressant (therefore potential | | |
|olive leaf |weight loss effects) and not suitable for all population | | |
|ginkgo nut |groups. | | |
|Hoodia gordonii |Coffee berry – no obvious safety concerns identified by | | |
| |ACNF/FSANZ, but had little history of consumption to establish | | |
|coffee berry |safety. | | |
| |ACNF/FSANZ considered these products to be novel because: |2a. Primary foods that have been physically |These foods meet this permission criterion, but if |
| |Perilla oil is purported to have antithrombotic (blood |processed or fractionated |new food sources, suppliers would be required to |
|perilla oil |clotting) and anti-inflammatory effects. May be unsuitable for | |hold evidence that the food is safe for the general|
| |some population groups and be of concern if added to the | |population as prepared and consumed. |
| |general food supply. | | |
| |Stevia leaf – little information to support safe use as a food.| |Unless FSANZ adopted a specific intervention, no |
|stevia (crushed leaf) |Some use by traditional South American populations to sweeten | |assessment would be required for these foods. |
| |foods, but also potential therapeutic effects. Unanswered | | |
| |question regarding adverse reproductive effects. Glycosides | | |
| |derived from stevia leaf were later approved as intense | | |
| |sweeteners. | | |
|hawthorn-berry jam |Hawthorn-berry jam - reports of adverse effects from | | |
| |consumption of hawthorn berries. | | |
| |ACNF/FSANZ considered these products to be novel because: |2b. Primary foods in dried or concentrated form|If Dieffenbachia amoena has does not meet the |
| |Dieffenbachia amoena is a decorative plant that has not | |definition of a primary food, it would not meet |
|Dieffenbachia amoena (dried vegetable) |previously been consumed as a food. It has hallucinogenic | |this criterion. |
| |properties and would not be safe to add to foods. | |A assessment would be required. |
|dong quai (powdered root) |Dong quai does not appear to have been used in a food context, | |Otherwise dried Dieffenbachia amoena and powdered |
| |so would likely be considered a NEW food. Associated with use | |dong quai root meet this permission criterion, but |
| |as a traditional Chinese medicine. Contraindicated for use by | |if new food sources, suppliers would be required to|
| |pregnant women. Some reports of adverse effects. | |hold evidence that the food is safe for the general|
| | | |population as prepared and consumed. |
| | | |Unless FSANZ adopted a specific intervention, no |
| | | |assessment would be required for these foods. |
| | | | |
| |Slippery elm bark powder has not been used as a food. It is | |Slippery elm bark powder does not meet this |
| |associated with a number of potential therapeutic benefits. | |permission criterion as the source material is not |
| |Some traditional use as an abortificant. Potential for adverse | |a primary food. |
|slippery elm bark powder |effects if used in foods. | | |
| | | |An assessment would be required. |
| |ACNF/FSANZ considered these products to be novel because: |Extracts of foodstuffs that are added to foods | |
| |African mango seed extract differed from traditional |at a concentration consistent with that present|The African mango seed extract does not meet this |
|aqueous African mango seed |consumption of the seed itself. Therefore, greater potential |if the source foodstuff were used as an |permission criterion because the extract would be |
| |for increased exposure compared to traditional use. Potential |ingredient |added to foods at a higher level than if the |
| |weight loss effects, which may not be suitable for all | |crushed seed was used as an ingredient. |
| |population groups. Mechanism of action also not well | |An assessment would be required. |
| |characterised. | | |
|white kidney bean extract |White kidney bean extract has appetite suppression (and | |White kidney bean extract meets this permission |
| |therefore potential weight loss) properties. Not suitable for | |criterion, but suppliers would be required to hold |
| |all population groups. | |evidence that the food is safe for the general |
| |In general, many beans contain potentially toxic substances | |population as prepared and consumed. |
| |that are removed as part of processing. Supplier’s evidence | |Unless FSANZ adopted a specific intervention, no |
| |would need to show these substances have been removed. | |assessment would be required. |
| |ACNF/FSANZ considered these products to be novel because: |Substances derived from foodstuffs through |As Betaine is a selectively extracted substance and|
| |Betaine - is a substance selectively extracted and added to |physical or enzymatic processes |added to other food groups at levels higher than if|
|Betaine |other food groups (also at levels higher than if beetroot were | |beetroot were used as an ingredient does not meet |
| |used as an ingredient). | |permission criterion 4b |
| | | |(the level is consistent with that present if the |
| | | |source foodstuff were used as an ingredient, and |
| | | |the processes have not resulted in extraction or |
| | | |selective production of a specific substance). |
| | | |An assessment would be required. |
| |Slendesta’s intended effect is appetite suppression, which may | | |
|Slendesta potato protein extract powder |not suitable for some population groups. | |As Slendesta is selectively produced to contain |
| | | |standardised amounts of protease inhibitors and is |
| | | |intended to be added to other food groups, it does |
| | | |not meet permission criterion 4b |
| | | |(the processes have not resulted in extraction or |
| | | |selective production of a specific substance). |
| | | |An assessment would be required. |
Attachment C – Summary of International Regulatory Systems
1. Overview
• The table below summarizes the approaches to novel foods and nutritive substances in major international jurisdictions and New Zealand. ‘Exclude unless permitted’ is the common approach for novel foods and nutritive substances in food regulations. Where permission is required in foods, this is on the basis of a safety assessment. For ‘enhanced’ foods that require permission, some jurisdictions also require an efficacy assessment. Australia is different because it does not have a separate regulatory structure for ‘enhanced’ foods.
• EU, Canada, USA and Australia/NZ all have a quick assessment procedure as part of their novel foods procedures (see following pages for details). Apart from Australia and NZ, these decisions have legal status.
• The definitions of novel foods, nutritive substances, additives, processing aids, etc. in other jurisdictions are no clearer than in the Code - and in many cases are less clear. USA is the clearest because their definition of ingredient is all-embracing, and all new ingredients since 1958 need a safety assessment, although a self-regulation route is available.
• In our case, even if we could have ‘certain’ definitions for novel foods and nutritive substances it may have little practical effect because many of these foods and substances are legal in NZ as Supplemented Foods, and therefore may be sold in Australia under the TTMRA. Furthermore ingredients or foods sold in New Zealand is Supplemented Food Products may not subsequently be considered as ‘novel’ if subsequently incorporated into mainstream foods in Australia.
Approaches to Novel Foods and Nutritive Substances
| |Foods |‘Enhanced[7]‘ Foods |Supplements (pills & potions) |
|EU |Novel Foods Regulations - |Fortified foods regulation - substance |‘Food Supplements’ |
| |preapproval needed for all novel |preapproval needed | |
| |foods and substances since 1997 | | |
| |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |i.e. Excluded unless permitted (at |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |
| | |substance, not food, level) | |
|USA |No specific novel foods rule, but |Dietary supplements regulations. Register production facilities. New dietary |
| |all substances added to foods since |supplement ingredients (since 1994) need to lodge safety data with FDA. |
| |1958 require evaluation | |
| |i.e. Excluded unless evaluated (GRAS|i.e. Permitted unless excluded by FDA objection |
| |or additive application) | |
|Canada |Novel Foods Regulations - |Natural products Regulations. Licence products plus domestic facilities. |
| |preapproval needed for all new | |
| |novels | |
| |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |
|NZ |Novel Foods and nutritive substances|Supplemented Foods Regulations, no |Dietary Supplements (Medicines |
| |need preapproval. Some specific |registration. Additives regulated. No |Regulations) |
| |fortification and restoration |prohibition on novel foods or nutritive | |
| |approvals and Standards in the Code |substances. | |
| |(1.3.2, 1.5.1). | | |
| |Some special purpose foods in the | | |
| |Code, eg formulated supplementary | | |
| |foods. | | |
| |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |i.e. Permitted unless excluded |i.e. Permitted unless excluded |
|Au |Novel Foods and nutritive substances| |Complementary medicines. Product |
| |need preapproval. Some specific | |listed by applicant from a specific |
| |fortification and restoration | |list of actives and excipients. |
| |approvals and Standards in the Code | | |
| |(1.3.2, 1.5.1) | | |
| |Some special purpose foods in the | | |
| |Code, eg formulated supplementary | | |
| |foods. | | |
| |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |No separate regulation |i.e. Excluded unless permitted |
2. European Union
2.1 Novel Foods and novel food ingredients
The definition used in the EU for novel foods is: Foods and food ingredients that have not been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community before 15 May 1997. This includes:
• foods and food ingredients which present a primary molecular structure;
• foods and food ingredients which consist of micro-organisms, fungi or algae;
• foods and food ingredients which consist of or are isolated from plants or isolated from animals;
• foods and food ingredients whose nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances has been significantly changed by the production process.
The Regulation is not applicable to food additives, flavourings or extraction solvents (see below).
Foods and food ingredients must not:
• present a danger for the consumer;
• mislead him/her;
• be nutritionally disadvantageous for him/her.
The following approval process is applied:
Food additives are defined in Community legislation as any substance not normally consumed as a food in itself and not normally used as a characteristic ingredient of food whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological purpose results in it or its by-products becoming directly or indirectly a component of such foods.
Processing Aids are defined in the Framework Directive as any substance:
• not consumed as a food ingredient by itself
• intentionally used in the processing of raw materials, foods or their ingredients, to fulfil a certain technological purpose during treatment or processing
• capable of resulting in the unintentional but technically unavoidable presence of residues of the substance or its derivatives in the final product,
• provided that these residues do not present any health risk and do not have any technological effect on the finished product
2.2 Other substances added to food (such as nutritional substances)[8]
The EU adopted the Regulation on ‘the addition of vitamins, minerals and certain other substances to foods’ in mid-October 2006.
The Regulation established a procedure involving the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which, for the first time, would allow the examination of these substances to assess any possible risk to human health. On the basis of the EFSA Opinion, a decision on possible restrictions on these substances will be taken by Commission and Member States through Comitology procedure.
More commonly known as the ‘fortified foods regulation,’ this piece of legislation controls the addition of vitamins, minerals and nutritive substances to all food products other than Foods for Particular Nutritional Uses and food supplements.
Food supplements are concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect whose purpose is to supplement the normal diet. They are marketed 'in dose' form i.e. as pills, tablets, capsules, liquids in measured doses etc.
3. USA
3.1 Novel Foods and novel food ingredients
There are no specific novel food or substance regulations, but all substances added to foods that have no history of use pre-1958 need evaluation. The process is described below:
3.2 Other substances added to food, e.g. nutritional substances[9]
A dietary supplement must be one or any combination of the following substances: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb or other botanical, an amino acid, a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake (e.g., enzymes or tissues from organs or glands), or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent or extract.
Dietary supplements may be found in many forms such as tablets, capsules, softgels, gelcaps, liquids, or powders. They can also be in other forms, such as a bar, but if they are, information on their label must not represent the product as a conventional food or a sole item of a meal or diet.
Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. The USFDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with the USFDA nor get USFDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements. Domestic and foreign production facilities need to be registered with the USFDA.
For new dietary supplement ingredients, the USFDA must be advised of the information used to conclude that the ingredient is safe. ‘New’ = not used (consumed) before 1994. Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.
The USFDA’s post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labelling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature.
4. Canada
4.1 Novel Foods and novel food ingredients
Novel Foods are:
• foods resulting from a process not previously used for food
• products that do not have a history of safe use as a food
• foods that have been modified by genetic manipulation, also known as genetically modified foods, GM foods, genetically engineered foods or biotechnology-derived foods
Health Canada assesses the safety of all genetically-modified and other novel foods proposed for sale in Canada. Companies are required to submit detailed scientific data for review and approval by Health Canada, before such foods can be sold. The process (B28.002) requires the manufacturer to notify the Director in writing of their intention to sell or advertise for sale the novel food; and receive a written notice from the Director (as set out below).
4.2 Other substances added to food, e.g. nutritional substances[10]
Under the Natural Health Products Regulations natural health products (NHPs) are defined as:
• Vitamins and minerals
• Herbal remedies
• Homeopathic medicines
• Traditional medicines such as traditional Chinese medicines
• Probiotics
• Other products like amino acids and essential fatty acids
All products, whether manufactured domestically or in a foreign site, must first undergo a pre-market review where it will be assessed for safety, efficacy, and quality. NHPs must be safe to use as over-the-counter products and not need a prescription to be sold. Products needing a prescription are regulated as drugs. Health claims are permitted, and there are requirements regarding efficacy and labelling.
To be legally sold in Canada, all natural health products must have a product licence, and the Canadian sites that manufacture, package, label and import these products must have site licences.
To get product and site licences, specific labelling and packaging requirements must be met, good manufacturing practices must be followed, and proper safety and efficacy evidence must be provided.
5. New Zealand
5.1 Novel Foods, and novel food ingredients and nutritional substances
With very few exceptions, food made in or imported into New Zealand has to comply with the Code. This includes the requirement for pre-market approval of novel foods and nutritive substances except when sold as or used in Supplemented Foods.
5.2 Supplemented Foods Standard
The New Zealand Food (Supplemented Food) Standard 2010 (the Supplemented Food Standard)[11] was introduced on 31 March 2010. Existing food-type dietary supplements, from March 2012, will need to comply with the Supplemented Foods standard. Examples of food-type dietary supplements include muesli bars, juices, sports foods and sports powders with levels of added vitamins, minerals, and other substances higher than those permitted by, or not permitted by, the Code.
Provided the TGA does not conclude that a particular supplemented food is regarded in Australia as a complementary medicine, supplemented foods that are legal in NZ may be sold as foods in Australia under the TTMRA, even if they contain nutritive substances or novel foods or substances.
The Supplemented Food Standard was developed to provide updated regulation for food-type dietary supplements, and to align them as much as possible with the requirements for food generally in the Code. A supplemented food is defined as[12]:
1. A supplemented food is a product that is represented as a food that has a substance or substances added to it or that has been modified in some way to perform a physiological role beyond the provision of a simple nutritive requirement.
2. A product is not a supplemented food if it is ─
a) a dietary supplement (as defined in the Dietary Supplement Regulations 1985); or
b) a medicine (as defined in the Medicines Act 1981); or
c) a controlled drug or restricted substance (as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975); or
d) a formulated meal replacement or a formulated supplementary food (as defined in standard 2.9.3 of the Code); or
e) a formulated caffeinated beverage (as defined in standard 2.6.4 of the Code).
Note:
• Clause 9 of Standard 1.1.1 of the Code – prohibition on addition of nutritive substances to food (unless expressly permitted in the Code) does not apply.
• Standard 1.5.1 (Novel Foods) of the Code does not apply, apart from clause 3 (exclusive use of novel foods).
• Supplemented foods are required to bear a label that includes the words ‘supplemented food’.
• The Supplemented Food Standard is a New Zealand only standard.
• Unlike Canada, for instance, which has an equivalent standard for ‘natural foods’; there is no register or requirement for adverse effects reporting.
Attachment D – Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF)
Type of assessment conducted by the ACNF
Element 6 of the proposed approach (section 4.1 of the consultation paper) is based on the current ACNF assessment process which uses information submitted by an inquirer (using a proforma developed by FSANZ), supplemented with information available in the public domain, and intelligence provided by jurisdictional members, to recommend whether an application to amend the Code (to permit the food or substance) is necessary. This recommendation is based on information indicating either that adverse health effects have been directly demonstrated (via published scientific studies or the experience of use in other countries) or are likely to occur based on the composition of the food or substance (such as the co-occurrence of a toxic constituent). Where the composition of the food or substance is shown to be equivalent to a comparator food or substance (that is already consumed in Australia and/or New Zealand) then the ACNF would conclude that the food or substance is as safe as the comparator food or substance and on this basis an application to amend the Code is unnecessary. Any uncertainty about the composition of the food or substance is addressed by liaising with the inquirer for further data/information. It should be noted that a recommendation to require an application to FSANZ does not imply that the food or substance is unsafe for consumers but that a risk assessment is necessary to make that determination.
More information on the ACNF is provided below.
Modus operandi
The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) is a non-statutory advisory committee that provides recommendations in response to enquiries about whether particular foods meet the definitions of ‘non-traditional food’ in Standard 1.5.1 – Novel Foods, and whether or not an assessment of public health and safety is required (i.e. via an application to amend the Code). The Committee gives its recommendation to the FSANZ General Manager, Food Standards (Wellington), and this forms the basis of a response to the enquirer. The terms of reference (ToR) for the Committee are given below.
The ACNF includes representatives from Australian State and Territory jurisdictions, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and FSANZ, which chairs the Committee (see details of Membership below).
Enquiries are submitted from industry, individuals or government agencies via a questionnaire[13], which provides basic information on the food including its identity, method of production, intended use, product specifications/composition, history of use and whether there is any evidence of adverse effects. FSANZ supplements this information with its own searches of the scientific literature for any other relevant information, including evidence of adverse effects. The ACNF uses a guidance tool, which was developed by FSANZ, to facilitate the assessment of the enquiry. The guidance tool has four elements:
1. Introduction. This provides general information on the Novel Foods Standard, the ACNF and how to use the guidance tool.
2. Information to be provided by enquirer. This refers to the information that an enquirer needs to provide and how the Committee will consider it when using the guidance tool.
3. Guidance tool Part 1. This helps the Committee when it is considering whether a food is non-traditional or not. It highlights what sort of information the enquirer should supply to the Committee so it can make a recommendation.
4. Guidance tool Part 2. This is only used if the Committee initially recommends that the food is non-traditional. It helps the Committee make a recommendation as to whether a non-traditional food should be further assessed for public health and safety considerations. This part also highlights that information provided by the enquirer which the Committee should consider when recommending whether there should be an assessment of public health and safety considerations.
It is worth noting that the enquirer does not have to seek a recommendation from the ACNF. A potential applicant may directly submit an application seeking to amend Standard 1.5.1 to permit a novel food.
After ACNF has given its recommendations to the General Manager, Food Standards (Wellington), the General Manager uses them as the basis for a response to the inquirer. FSANZ will also provide a copy of the recommendations to members of the Implementation Sub-Committee (ISC) of the Food Regulation Standing Committee and provide an opportunity to comment before the General Manager responds to the enquirer. The function of ISC is to ensure a consistent approach to implementation and enforcement of food regulations and standards in Australia and New Zealand.
Not all enquiries will necessarily produce a recommendation from the ACNF. Even after considering an enquiry the ACNF may require more information about it, particularly if there is not enough information available to provide a recommendation. It is therefore possible that some enquiries discussed by the ACNF will not have a recommendation published on the FSANZ website.
Views of the ACNF are published on the FSANZ website at .
Terms of Reference
1. Consider enquiries in relation to potential novel foods (in conjunction with the required data), including previously considered enquiries in relation to potential novel foods where new data has been submitted.
2. Make recommendations to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) General Manager – Food Standards (Wellington) in response to enquiries in relation to potential novel foods. The recommendations should contain the following advice:
a) Whether the food that is the subject of the enquiry should be considered a ‘non-traditional food’ in accordance with the definition in Standard 1.5.1.
b) Whether an assessment of public health and safety considerations should be required for the food that is the subject of the enquiry to confirm that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the food and to decide whether any risk management strategies are warranted to ensure the safe use of the food. In preparing this recommendation, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) would in effect, be performing a preliminary hazard identification step in the context of the risk analysis framework.
If the recommendation is made that an assessment of public health and safety considerations is required, this equates to a view that the food meets the definition of ‘novel food’ in Standard 1.5.1 and therefore an application would be required to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code), before the food could be sold in Australia or New Zealand.
c) Whether the enquirer should make an application to FSANZ to amend the Code in order for an assessment of public health and safety considerations to be undertaken.
Where consensus is not reached, the majority view will be put forward in the recommendations to the FSANZ General Manager – Food Standards (Wellington) and alternative views will be noted.
3. Use the guidance tool in forming recommendations.
4. Agree to provide a draft letter in response to the enquiry, to the FSANZ General Manager – Food Standards (Wellington) to accompany the recommendations.
5. Agree to minutes of previous meetings.
6. Agree to the placement of views in relation to whether a food is ‘non-traditional’ and whether an assessment of public health and safety considerations is required, and the justification for this view, on the FSANZ website.
7. If a question arises as to whether a product or substance may be more appropriately regulated as a therapeutic good rather than a food, the issue is to be referred to the relevant Food-Medicine Interface Group∗ for consideration and advice. The Food-Medicine Interface Group may refer the matter back to the ACNF if it is considered the product or substance is more appropriately regulated as a food. The consideration as to whether a substance is a food within the meaning of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (the FSANZ Act) (as opposed to a therapeutic good), is a threshold question that will be considered prior to the ACNF using the guidance tool to form recommendations.
Membership
The membership of the ACNF and the role of each member on the ACNF are as follows:
FSANZ membership
|Member |Role |
|Chief Scientist (or their delegate) |Chair |
|Senior Risk Manager |Secretariat |
| |Risk Management Advice (ToR 1, 2(a), (c), 3-7) |
|Principal Toxicologist (or their delegate) |Scientific advice on safety (ToR 1, 2(b), 3-7) |
|Senior Toxicologist/Senior Food Scientist |Scientific advice on safety (ToR 1, 2(b), 3-7) |
|Social scientist |To assist with the interpretation of ‘non-traditional food’ in |
| |accordance with the definition and the guidance tool (ToR 1, 2 (a), |
| |3-7) |
Advice will be sought from Office of Legal Counsel, Principal Food Technologist, Principal Nutritionist, Principal Microbiologist, Standards Management Officer or other relevant expertise on an as-needs basis, but they are not members of the ACNF. These FSANZ staff members may be requested to attend particular meetings of the ACNF and provide specific input when requested.
Jurisdictional and NZFSA membership
The role of each of these representatives is to:
1. Assist with the recommendation on whether the food, the subject of the enquiry should be considered a ‘non-traditional food’ in accordance with the definition in Standard 1.5.1 (ToR 2(a)), as well as addressing ToR 1, 3-7.
2. Raise issues related to enforcement for discussion.
3. To bring issues to the ACNF related to potential novel foods.
Attachment E – List of Questions for Submitters
Eligibility criteria:
Q1. Will the eligibility criteria efficiently identify when a pre-market assessment is required for a food or substance?
Q2. Do you have any suggestions for improvement of the eligibility criteria? Please provide details of your suggestions, including justification or rationale for your suggestions, and examples.
Q3. Can you identify examples of substances that may not meet the eligible food criteria, but should be considered eligible foods? For example, foods or substances that are well characterised and understood to be safe, but may be considered non-eligible because of the above criteria? If so, please provide examples, including justification or rationale and any suggestions for improvement of the criteria.
Evidence requirements for new foods:
Q4. Can you provide comment on suitable evidentiary requirements for the type of information/data that should be held by industry to support the safety of human consumption of new foods?
Overall approach:
Q5. Are you supportive of the general approach described in this paper?
Q6. Do you have any suggestions for alternative approaches, or aspects of the approach that could be improved? Please provide details of your suggestions, including a justification or rationale for your suggestions, and examples.
Q7. If you have any concerns about the proposed approach please provide details of your concerns, including a rationale for them and any examples that may assist in describing your concerns.
Industry:
Q8. Will your organisation submit more (or fewer) requests under the proposed assessment of non-eligible foods element (see element 6 in section 4.1)?
Q9. Will your organisation submit more or fewer applications to have foods approved in the Code?
Consumers:
Q10. FSANZ encourages comment on the potential impacts of the proposed alternative regulatory approach on consumers.
-----------------------
[1] Food-derived substances refer to substances derived from primary foods. Primary foods are currently defined the Code, but this definition may require refinement under the alternative regulatory approach in future.
[2] This assessment element of the alternative regulatory approach will not apply to categories of substances or foods that have other permission requirements in the Code, such as food additives, processing aids, vitamins and minerals, foods produced using gene technology and irradiated foods.
[3] NOTE:
The terms food, foodstuff, food group, ingredient and substance are used in this alternative regulatory approach. At this stage, they are defined below, based on the Macquarie Dictionary definitions but it is acknowledged that these definitions will require further consideration. They are indicative only and are for the purposes of working through this draft approach, and will be investigated in more detail during the Proposal process.
Substances of potential concern are those that may present risk through chemical activity, bioactivity or through proposed use at elevated concentrations in food.
Food: overarching term (as Food Acts)
Foodstuff: a product suitable for eating in that form
Food group: like products produced from a primary food (defined below)
Ingredient: something that is used as a component of a mixed food
Substance: a species of matter of definite chemical composition
A primary food is defined in Standard 1.3.2 and is taken to mean fruit, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, milk, eggs, nuts, seeds and fish.
[4] Primary foods are currently defined in Standard 1.3.2 of the Code. This definition may require refinement under the alternative regulatory approach.
[5] Flavouring substances are not permitted unless they meet the conditions in Standard 1.3.1
[6] If new food sources, suppliers would be required to hold evidence that the food is safe for the general population as prepared and consumed.
[7] ‘Enhanced’ is a term used to cover foods such as food-type dietary supplements, ‘health foods’, foods fortified beyond typical levels, etc.
[8] Based on Extracts from:
New EU controls on functional foods and nutraceuticals.
[9] Extracted from:
[10] Extracted from:
[11]
[12]
[13]
*ð Australia and New Zealand previously had separate Food-Medicine interface groups.The Australian group is in the process of beieeonn3927.cfm"
∗ Australia and New Zealand previously had separate Food-Medicine interface groups.The Australian group is in the process of being reconstituted. New Zealand does not have a formal food-medicine interface group.
-----------------------
(Registers maintained)
Application prepared by sponsor
Sent to Competent Authority in Member State
Additional assessment required?
No
Authority RA decision
Likely effect on public health
Advised to Commission and the other States
EC process (risk management)
EFSA / EC process (RA and RM)
No objection
Product may be placed on the market
[pic]+,-.6x¡¢£¤ÊÏÐÔá I V ±³µ¶·ÉéåÚÓËû´°©¡š?‰~s~s~sgs~s_W_OProduct may be placed on the market with conditions
Product may be placed on the market with specific protocols
(2) GRAS: the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of use
Substance (1) deliberately added to food
Additive (incl processing aids)
Scientific evidence – published or in - house
Intended conditions of use
Generally recognised as safe (GRAS (2)). Manufacturer chooses next step
Pre – market approval by FDA
Maintain information that the substance is GRAS for that use, based on published scientific evidence; or history of use pre-1958
Notification to FDA intended conditions of use, and published scientific evidence; or history of use pre-1958
FDA does not question the basis for the notifier’s GRAS determination
The notice does not provide a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination
No approval needed from FDA
(1) these have very broad definitions, including nutritive substances and foods
45 days max
If acceptable
Submission of a novel food notification to Health Canada
Petitioner advised of need for additional information
Additional information considered
Decision document posted by Health Canada
Additional information required for safety assessment
Recommendation to Food Rulings Committee
Letter of no objection sent to petitioner
NO
YES
Recommendation to Food Rulings Committee
Petitioner may withdraw petition
Additional 90 days
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- guide to being a man s man
- man s guide to divorce
- a man s guide to women
- opportunity costs refer to quizlet
- refer to thesaurus
- refer to synonym
- men s guide to understanding women
- excel vba refer to cell
- artifacts that refer to ethical values
- artifacts that refer to ethics
- administrative applications and resources csu
- beginner s guide to social media